Yeah, me neither. Yet, we have a group of people out there who are more than willing to take the chance of “inviting” known killers who hate us into the country.
As usual, the media and some pundits have turned a very gray area into stark black and white arguments. You’re apparently for allowing open immigration to anyone or you’re a racist and a bigot if you opt to be selective.
What I’m talking about is the majority of the nation which is reasonably concerned that those who would kill us are seeking entry into the country without being screened and, if necessary, rejected. This is characterized as “unAmerican”. So, then, was Ellis Island where we rejected would be immigrants if they were sick or had criminal backgrounds, etc.
Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical. . . .
All important points, but the final point is most likely the most important. McCarthy again:
Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.
Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. . . .
The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.
And that’s where we must draw the line. If an immigrant wants to become an American, recognize the separation of church and state and embrace the constitutional principles which govern this country, I say “welcome”. If not, I say, “don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass as you leave”.
Of course, the left’s legacy of “multiculturalism” says we must respect different cultures and learn to live with them. I say, no we don’t. Why? Because some cultures are destructive and some cultures are inferiors. I know, not politically correct, but certainly reality based (something the left once tried to convince us was a description of their ideological grounding).
You would no more invite a killer that hated you and wanted to take over your house into your home than any other sane person. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t apply the same principle to this country (and for those of you who don’t read carefully, that means we don’t keep out all Muslims, only those (of any religion or ethnic group) who refuse to recognize our Constitutional principles and won’t assimilate).
We don’t “owe” them anything.
So, what would a ban on all Muslims being allowed into the US do?
Well, I don’t know. I certainly understand why there are those calling for it but there’s a simple point here, as pointed out in San Bernardino:
The attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino last week were discussing jihad at least two years before they opened fire in California, the FBI director said Wednesday.
The husband-and-wife duo “were radicalized for quite a long time before their attack,” FBI Director James B. Comey said during an appearance on Capitol Hill. This follows earlier statements by investigators that the shooters had both been adherents to a radical strain of Islam long before the massacre.
And one of them was a US citizen born in the United States.
Certainly, banning all Muslims from entry into the country would probably weed out some potential jihadis. But a committed jihadi isn’t likely to seek permission to enter. Not with the condition of our borders. And, on the other hand, I find it completely contrary to what I believe, even though I certainly have a level of understanding for those calling for it.
More importantly, and right’s questions aside, is the exclusion likely to do to Muslims here exactly what happened to the San Bernardino male half of the killing team. Radicalize them … or some of them. Homegrown jihadis.
All that said, it certainly seems that a devout believer in Islam would have a higher likelihood of embracing radicalism than some other religions. Part of that is because it is so incompatible with Western values and ideals. So, a devout follower is less likely to assimilate than those of other religions. Couple that with the demands of Sharia law and it appears to be totally incompatible with Western values and ideals (to those who become radicalized because of that incompatibility).
What about them? What does a country do with citizens, or non-citizens for that matter, who don’t want to assimilate, don’t want to embrace the country’s ideals and insist, in fact, demand, that the country change to accommodate their beliefs?
Just a bunch of questions that have popped into my mind as I watch all of the politics of the issue flying around the airwaves.
Those words were uttered by President Obama prior to the Paris massacre by ISIS. Politico argues that the words were in response to a specific question about territory ISIS controlled. And, frankly, if that’s the argument I think it has some credibility. However, in the same interview, Obama said:
Until Assad is no longer a lightning rod for Sunnis in Syria and the entire region is no longer a proxy war for Shia-Sunni conflict, we’re gunna continue to have problems. … with making sure that ISIL continues to shrink in its scope of operations until it no longer poses the kind of threat that it does, not just primarily to us, but to neighbors in the region[.]”
Just as clearly, that’s a claim that the administration and it’s allies in the region will keep up their operations to ensure that “ISIL continues to shrink its scope of operations” until it is no longer a threat. While it may not specifically state that “ISIL is contained”, it certainly implies success in “continuing” to “shrink” ISIL/ISIS’s “scope of operations”. To me, its pretty much the same claim as “ISIS is contained”.
However, as usual, reality trumps fantasy:
Since October 10, ISIS and its sympathizers around the world have killed at least 525 people in six attacks in six countries outside its so-called caliphate.
American counterterrorism officials say that of the six attacks, three were directed by ISIS from its territory in Syria and Iraq and another two were so-called “announcement” attacks — local ISIS elements revealing their existence in dramatic fashion.
Yes, that’s right, friends and neighbors, since October 10th, 525 people around the world have died as a result of this “shrinking” of ISIL/ISIS’s “scope of operations”. 525 in 6 separate attacks. And the fact is, our “leader” was trying to peddle the notion that ISIL/ISIS was being controlled.
Does it sound like success in “shrinking” the “scope of operations” of this terrorist group? Does it look like ISIL/ISIS is being controlled?
Most people would read it as a very large expansion of operations by a group largely out of anyone’s control on the opposition side.
But then, most people aren’t in “denial” (and if you’re wondering, remember the correct answer is “gun control”).
I’ve seen many critiques of it, but for me it was, well, boring. Why? Because it was so predictable. Other than some grudging acceptance of the terrorism that has spawned in the US, it was the usual nonsense of lecturing the citizens of the US like they were children. Jim Geraghty picked up on that too:
At this point in his presidency, Obama speaks with only one tone, the slightly exasperated and sometimes not-merely-slightly exasperated “adult in the room” who constantly has to correct his fellow Americans, who are always flying off the handle, calling for options that “aren’t who we are,” betraying our values, and so on. He’s always so disappointed in us.
At certain points, Obama sounded as if he was speaking to children. “The threat is real, but we will overcome it.” “We will not defeat it with tough talk, abandoning our values, or giving in to fear.” “We will prevail by being strong and smart.”
And yet, we’ve heard nothing “strong or smart” from the man giving the lecture. Nothing. For instance:
He made yet another pitch for barring anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list from purchasing firearms. He simply ignored any of the objections, whether it’s the lack of due process or judicial review, the arbitrary, foggy nature of how someone gets on the list, or the fact that 280,000 people with no recognized terrorist group affiliation are on the list.
Sounds good to those who don’t really think about it, but is it? Not really. Why? Well, that’s fairly simple:
You know who wasn’t on the no-fly list? The San Bernardino shooters. Nor was the Fort Hood shooter. Nor the Boston bombers. Nor the Chattanooga shooter. In other words, no perpetrator of any major attack on American soil was on the no-fly list.
So again, the “smartest guy in the room” acts exasperated with the “children” but offers up a whole lot of nothing – except the usual dump truck load of words – that addresses the problem.
As someone tweeted when they found out that Obama, Biden and Rice among others were meeting to address San Bernardino, “Our JV team”.
One – the immediate politicization of any tragedy involving guns, facts or no facts:
Just when we think that politics can’t sink any lower, President Obama once again proves us wrong by politicizing the tragedy in San Bernardino before the facts were even known. What we do know is that the American people are heartbroken by these horrific crimes — and despite what the president would have us believe — America’s law-abiding gun owners are heartbroken by these horrific crimes as well. At the same time, we are sick and tired of this president suggesting the men and women of the National Rifle Association are somehow to blame.
Why, you ask? Well because this supposed “leader” of ours is all about politics and agendas. He’s already decided what is “best” for the rest of us whether or not the actual fact match the narrative or not.
Two, which is related to One. The hypocrisy and cowardice of the left. Radical Islam has struck more than once here in the US the and cowards won’t acknowledge it or face it. But they will vilify and defame those who won’t strike back and blame them for the problem such as Christians, the NRA, and the Right in general. God help you if you believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Yes I know Jon Gabriel and yes I know he’s being totally sarcastic. I also know he makes the point perfectly. By the way, did you see where Bloomberg and MSNBC tweeted that the shooting was only “blocks away from a Planned Parenthood” facility. See “One” above. Think narrative construction.
Three – we now have the Attorney General of the United States promising to take action against US citizens if she considers their rhetoric to be anti-Muslim and “edges” towards violence:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence” and told the Muslim community that “we stand with you in this.”
Speaking at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is increasingly concerned with the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.”
Who will be the arbiter? And, why selective treatment? See “Two” above. They won’t face the real enemy and they want to chill speech pretending it is anti-Muslim rhetoric that is the problem, not Radical Islamists.
These three things are consistent in every shooting that involved radical muslims. One, the attempt to initially frame it so that the right is the problem. Then to frame it as if it was just another “mass shooting” – you know, “workplace violence.” The cause: guns, not followers of a 7th century death cult. Two, deny, deny, deny and try to shift the blame. Don’t face the reality of the problem. “ISIS is contained”. Instead of facing the problem and addressing it, Mr. Obama’s answer is to contemplate stricter gun laws by executive order that will do nothing to stop what happened in CA. But the left believes that the criminals and killers out there will be done … even though in California had every law Obama want’s nationally in place and supposedly functioning and the Islamic Radicals still had the banned weapons. Third, the erosion of freedom. Now we have the AG saying she’ll decide what “edges” toward violent rhetoric and will apparently act unilaterally to arrest the “perpetrator”. However rhetoric “edging” toward violence against any other non-protected group?
We’ve been offered all sorts of nonsense about the importance of battling climate change. Lately the meme has been that ISIS is a result of climate change (even though, for the past 10 years, the climate hasn’t changed). We’ve been treated to all sorts of theories masquerading as “proof” that climate change is real. We’ve watched the alarmists ignore contrary data and continue to tell their big lie.
Why? How does the lie survive as an actual movement?
Well, for one thing, there is a 100 billion dollars at risk, offered by the apparently guilt-ridden alarmists of the West, and the “third world” isn’t about to let that get away. It is about global income redistribution. All you have to do is look at who lines up on what side. India and China, for instance, insist they are “third world” and by George, they want a piece of that 100 billion. So they become willing participants in this lie, not because they necessarily believe any of it, but because there’s a pay-off.
Do they plan to actually do anything to mitigate CO2 production? Uh, not really. And they’re not the only ones:
More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal. The new plants will emit 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and undermine the efforts at the Paris climate conference to limit global warming to 2C. China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803, according to the study by four climate change research bodies, including Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. India is building 297 and planning 149. Rich countries are also planning new coal plants. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has prompted Japan to turn back to coal, with 40 plants in the pipeline and five under construction.
Here it is in graphic form:
In other words, no one is really serious at all about reducing CO2 – except the guilt-ridden, “white privilege” shamed Westerners who are more than happy to use their dubious “science” and your money to assuage their guilt. And of course, the “third world” who is quite happy to take advantage of that guilt, and your money, while ignoring the supposed “problem” completely – well, other than talking the talk. They have no intention of walking the walk.
The big lie, told often enough, becomes “the truth” … if you let it.
This, however, is just a lie fashioned to take your money and give it to others your imperial rulers deem “more deserving”.
I don’t know about you but I find that no matter where I turn, I’m being told that gun violence, gun crime … anything negative to do with guns … is at an all time high.
Check out the second chart. Note the key word in the title of the chart … “unaware”.
Why are they unaware?
Well, for one the media sensationalizes every event that might involve a gun. And they usually misrepresent, or don’t report, the fact that gun crimes and homicides are down … a lot! They imply it is getting more and more dangerous out there and the threat is … guns.
But that is simply not true. In fact:
Yet we have a President and the Democrats who’ve claimed that gun violence is epidemic. Obama even made the claim yesterday that other countries don’t have mass shootings … in Paris … a week or so after a mass shooting (what effin type of a cocoon does the man live in to make such out of touch and idiotic statements such as that?).
In reality, in a country in which there are more people than in 1993 as well as more guns, we see everything trending down and markedly so:
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Those are huge numbers. Yet to hear the left, you’d think the gun violence epidemic was about to overwhelm us unless we do something NOW! And of course, the solution they most favor is the elimination of guns for law abiding citizens. I say that very purposely because it would only be law abiding citizens who would be effected. Criminals would then have free reign.
The point of this rant is to point out that, just like with “climate change”, we’re being lied to again and the data obviously refutes the lie … in both cases. But for the left that doesn’t matter. They firmly believe in their agenda and they’re more than willing to lie to accomplish it, credibility and integrity be damned. The media is complicit and politicians are the most visible agitators. That’s why you have a Democratic President in Paris pushing both lies and the media doing its usual job of spreading them.
Sometimes you just want to bang your head against the wall, for all the good calling them out on it does.
This is absurd enough:
The Supreme Court has just issued an order (read it here) blocking the racially discriminatory separatist election in Hawaii. The order enjoins (stops) the counting of ballots and certification of results pending further order of the Supreme Court. I covered the election here and here at PJ Media.
Only one race is permitted to register to vote with Hawaiian government officials for the separatist election.Hawaii has given a private organization millions of dollars to run the election. They believe these actions are constitutional. Judicial Watch has sued Hawaii, and the Public Interest Legal Foundation has filed an emergency brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union asking the court to stop the election process.
That’s right, one race is permitted to register to vote for or against the separatist election. Because, you know, those who’ve lived there for generations but aren’t native, tough cookies. And while one might suppose that some of the natives are smart enough to realize when they have it much better connected to the US than they would unconnected, you might also suppose that there are enough infected with “native rights” to have not thought to deeply about a vote for a separation and the consequences thereof.
But if that is absurd, this is downright crazy:
Naturally, the Obama administration took their side and filed a brief supporting the racially discriminatory election. They argued that even though Congress has never authorized a new government on Hawaii comprised of the native race, the state should be allowed to establish one.
That’s right, our government argued for the discriminatory vote. Suddenly, they’re a huge “states rights” fan. Well unless that state doesn’t want to take in Syrian refugees. And then, not so much.
Wasn’t this the guy who was supposed to stop the oceans from rising and healing the wounds of racism with his magic touch. Is this how one goes about that?
The subject is academia. The writer, Bret Stephens at the WSJ prefaces his results with this:
“Liberal Parents, Radical Children,” was the title of a 1975 book by Midge Decter, which tried to make sense of how a generation of munificent parents raised that self-obsessed, politically spastic generation known as the Baby Boomers. The book was a case study in the tragedy of good intentions.
“We proclaimed you sound when you were foolish in order to avoid taking part in the long, slow, slogging effort that is the only route to genuine maturity of mind and feeling,” Miss Decter told the Boomers. “While you were the most indulged generation, you were also in many ways the most abandoned to your own meager devices.”
To say that as a generation, Boomers were over indulged, is a bit of an understatement. And the indulgence that has done the most damage to the fabric of this country is tolerating leftist orthodoxy. That orthodoxy, of course, found its unchallenged home in academia.
For almost 50 years universities have adopted racialist policies in the name of equality, repressive speech codes in the name of tolerance, ideological orthodoxy in the name of intellectual freedom. Sooner or later, Orwellian methods will lead to Orwellian outcomes. Those coddled, bullying undergrads shouting their demands for safer spaces, easier classes, and additional racial set-asides are exactly what the campus faculty and administrators deserve.
In other words, the radical children who grew up to run the universities have duplicated the achievement of their parents, and taken it a step further. In three generations, the campuses have moved from indulgent liberalism to destructive radicalism to the raised-fist racialism of the present—with each generation left to its increasingly meager devices. Why should anyone want to see this farce repeated as tragedy 10 or 20 years down the road?
No, because this is the idiocy it has spawned. Like this:
One of the panelists at the event was black Columbia student Nissy Aya. Aya was supposed to graduate in 2014, but instead is only on track to receive her degree in 2016. That, Aya says, demonstrates “how hard it has been for me to get through this institution,” though it’s worth noting she is an exceptional case, as Columbia has one of the highest four-year graduation rates in the country.
Aya attributed some of her academic troubles to the trauma of having to take Columbia’s current Core Curriculum, which requires students to take a series of six classes with a focus on the culture and history of Western, European civilization. Aya says this focus on the West was highly mentally stressful for her.
“It’s traumatizing to sit in Core classes,” she said. “We are looking at history through the lens of these powerful, white men. I have no power or agency as a black woman, so where do I fit in?”
As an example, Aya cited her art class, where she complained that Congolese artwork was repeatedly characterized as “primitive.” She wanted to object to that characterization but, in the Spectator’s words, was “tired of already having worked that day to address so many other instances of racism and discrimination.”
Yes, in terms of today, Lincoln was racist. But this campus protester in Missouri likely has no idea Lincoln also sacrificed very heavily politically to do what was done to abolish slavery. Historical context, however, is another victim of this nonsense.
This is what academia has become.
“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.” -Professor Thomas Sowell
And it’s even unravelling there.
Pretty, isn’t it?
An article sampling how some words used today by SJWs have been redefined from a more positive sense to a negative one which supports victim hood. The article then asks:
What Has Happened to Language?
This tiny vocabulary sampling reflects another recent epidemic of victimhood, as the English language is further squeezed and massaged to create reality from fantasy.
First, over a half-century of institutionalized equal opportunity has not led to an equality of result. Particular self-identified groups feel collectively that they are less well off than others and are bewildered that this is still possible, since they can point to no law or custom that precludes their opportunity by race, class, or gender. Therefore, inventing a vocabulary of grievances is far more effective in gaining concessions than self-criticism and self-reliance are in winning parity.
Second, in an affluent, leisured and postmodern society of $300 Jordan-label sneakers that sell out in hours, big-screen televisions at Walmart that become prizes for warring consumers on Black Friday, and over 50% of the population exempt from income taxes, it is becoming harder to define, in the material sense, oppression-driven victimhood. In such a world, even multi-billionaire Oprah has difficulty finding discrimination and so becomes reduced to whining about a perceived snub in a Swiss boutique that sells six-figure purses. Language is pressed into service to create victims where there are few, but where many are sorely needed, psychologically — and on the chance such a prized status might lead to a profitable trajectory otherwise impossible by passé notions of work and achievement.
Point one – this is what “1984” talked about. The subversion of language to fit an ideology or agenda. The SJWs of today do have a difficult job of assigning blame, so they’re twisted words to enable that. “Privilege”, which used to be a positive word, is now coupled with “white” in a decidedly negative way. The entire point, of course, is to “gain concessions” by producing guilt in the target audience. In this way they remain the “victim” class and it is the responsibility of the victimizers to subsidize or ensure advantage in life to the “victims”. It’s one of the reasons we see so many grievance movements popping up now … it works.
The second point – as we’ve all been made aware, our “poor” live at a level that would be considered middle class in Europe (speaking of “privilege”). But the world evolved now where equality in opportunity, at least in Western countries, isn’t at all hard to find. But, of course, that means “work and achievement”. Why do that when you can “suffer” as a “victim” and be forever subsidized in some way or another in the name of “equality” or whatever “ism” you prefer. That shaming and guilt production produces rewards from those who buy into the guilt and shame. And often they are politicians who are quite happy to use your money to assuage this assumed guilt. And, as we all know, we get less of the behavior we punish and more of that which we reward.
Guess which form of behavior we’re getting now, and why?